 | | Re: ICLTC —Eric Kingsley
| | | | (...) I think this is one of those cases where the few outway the many... If some people think the name is sexist and stupid (I do as well) then I don't think we should use it. Being traditional doesn't make it right, besides to many people wouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: ICLTC —Todd Lehman
| | | | | (...) Well said, Eric! And I couldn't agree more. I was written privately by someone who was concerned that I was butting into a conversation which I had no business butting into. But since it was taking place (in part) in lugnet.org.us.nelug and (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: ICLTC —Eric Kingsley
| | | | | (...) Well I think you have a right to "butt into" any conversation you want. LUGNET is your baby after all. I think anyone suggesting someone should butt out of a conversation on LUGNET is rude and uncalled for. (...) Well that was partially my (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: ICLTC —John Kelly
| | | | | ...snip... (...) ...more sinpage... Absolutely. Last time I checked this was your site. I guess I'm a little confused by this. Why is what we're getting paid from GATs a secret in the first place? I have to admit that I have no idea what we get from (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | | | | |
